SRGB or not

[ammitsboel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

Do you convert to your monitor ICC profile for web, or do you convert to SRGB and raise saturation?

 

I've noticed that for applications that are not color managed, converting to SRGB desaturates the image quite a bit.

 

Best Regards

Henrik

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Shootist]

I convert to sRGB then drop to 8bit then image resize and save as JPG. I do it all with a action.

 

Not sure why anyone would convert to there monitor profile.

[hoppyman]

Hi all,

 

Do you convert to your monitor ICC profile for web, or do you convert to SRGB and raise saturation?

 

I've noticed that for applications that are not color managed, converting to SRGB desaturates the image quite a bit.

 

Best Regards

Henrik

Henrik you have a couple of issues confused there. Your monitor if properly profiled should show close to what the image SHOULD look like, but you have no control over anyone else's monitor. Just edit for yourself. But for files to be posted on the web, convert to sRGB as a LAST STEP works. As you say, web applications are not colour managed. If you are developing Raw files you can use ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB for your output file and leave it that way, just converting depending on what output you want. For example some printers can exceed Adobe RGB in some tones. Then when you make a version for the web you convert that file to sRGB. If you want to see the difference:

I'm not competent in Capture One, but with Adobe Raw Converter, open a Raw file with saturated reds or yellows, select sRGB as the output colour space and you will likely see clipping, maybe at both ends, in the preview histogram. Change that to ProPhoto and the clipping should be gone.

[ammitsboel]

I think my issue is that SRGB is not an accurate profile for most monitors, so the photos look vague and less saturated on the screens with a lesser or just different than SRGB color gamma.

[hoppyman]

I think my issue is that SRGB is not an accurate profile for most monitors, so the photos look vague and less saturated on the screens with a lesser or just different than SRGB color gamma.

Henrik it is a complex subject. The colour space is the widest range of possible colours (the gamut). sRGB is the widest range that almost all monitors can display.

A profile measures how a particular device interprets a certain colour. The idea is that when that is known it is predictable and can be compensated for and you have control and predictability.

When you have a colour that is outside the gamut of a device it is replaced with one that is inside its gamut. Just how that is done depends on the rendering intent which is a bit outside the practical knowledge that you need here.

 

Whatever colour space your file is in you can't see more than within the sRGB colour space on almost every monitor anyway. That doesn't mean a good pro printer for example can't reproduce it.

So the practical solution is to edit and do whatever you want then convert the copy of your file that you plan to upload to sRGB as a last step or late in the edit, certainly. Try it and upload a picture. Try uploading one still in ProPhoto RGB and watch what can happen when the non-colour managed web browser tries to deal with that.

[jaapv]

I think my issue is that SRGB is not an accurate profile for most monitors, so the photos look vague and less saturated on the screens with a lesser or just different than SRGB color gamma.

 

 

It should not make a real difference on your monitor if you convert to sRGB as a last step. Most browsers do not support anything but sRGB, so if you do not convert down from larger colourspaces before posting the images will appear washed out and flat as soon as viewed in a web browser. That they look a bit less sharp is probably caused by resizing for the web. The cure is to apply a touch of USM, say: 25%, 0.4, 1.

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It should not make a real difference on your monitor if you convert to sRGB as a last step. Most browsers do not support anything but sRGB, so if you do not convert down from larger colourspaces before posting the images will appear washed out and flat as soon as viewed in a web browser. That they look a bit less sharp is probably caused by resizing for the web. The cure is to apply a touch of USM, say: 25%, 0.4, 1.

Jaap I was trying to outline a method for the OP that works without delving too much into theory. My experience with ProPhoto RGB has been to get unexpected results if I've not been careful to make that last step. Its convenient to use it in a standard sequence when preparing web versions.Can help avoid making mistakes with your original file too. Maybe you are more consistent and systematic than I!

Some sharpening worth while for sure. I didn't want to delve into that either as its really another subject.

[jaapv]

I agree, Geoff. My method is simple. I RAW convert to Prophoto and double the bit depth ( 16 for M8 and 32 for DMR) and do all my photoshop.After sharpening and resizing, in the end I have two actions.

The first is for printing: convert to 8-bits and aRGB,

the second is for the web: convert to 8-bits,sRGB and resharpen.(actually my sharpening is a bit more sophisticated than basic USM, but I do not want to complicate matters).

One very important point in colour-management: After one converts down in colourspace (Prophoto to aRGB to sRGB) it is not possible to reconvert to the larger colourspace. All additional colours are irrecoverably lost. The same goes for CMYK or LAB.

[Shootist]

I think my issue is that SRGB is not an accurate profile for most monitors, so the photos look vague and less saturated on the screens with a lesser or just different than SRGB color gamma.

Monitor profiles are meant to make that particular monitor display colors correctly.

The generic profiles, the ones supplied by the monitor manufacturer, that come with the monitor are general profiles to work with all monitor of that make and model disregarding any differences in each screen. That is why it is best to create your own profile for your monitor. That profile is supposed to change the way it displays colors to match whatever color space that monitor support. So when you have a image that is sRGB or aRGB or Pro-RGB the monitor will display the correct colors.

[ammitsboel]

Monitor profiles are meant to make that particular monitor display colors correctly.

The generic profiles, the ones supplied by the monitor manufacturer, that come with the monitor are general profiles to work with all monitor of that make and model disregarding any differences in each screen. That is why it is best to create your own profile for your monitor. That profile is supposed to change the way it displays colors to match whatever color space that monitor support. So when you have a image that is sRGB or aRGB or Pro-RGB the monitor will display the correct colors.

Let's say that I have an 8bit or/and 16bit prophoto file.

If I convert that file to SRGB, the file looses color depth and slightly changes the color balance as well, the texture looks like it looses some sharpness too.

This is both when viewed on a laptop and NEC monitor, both in a Safari browser without attached color profile and in Adobe with the "proof/monitor" selected.

 

If I instead convert to my calibrated laptop profile I get a result much closer to what I had in photoshop and It's also more consistent from monitor to monitor(MacBook, NEC, Thinkpad). The result also doesn't need color saturation and sharpening to match the looks it had in photoshop.

 

This has made me think that SRGB might be too large a colorspace for most laptop monitors?

[jaapv]

Does that mean that your NEC monitor is not calibrated? In that case it is impossible to judge correct colour rendering. It means that you must calibrate you monitor to match your output profile, and not the other way around by changing the profile of your file to match the monitor.

[ammitsboel]

Does that mean that your NEC monitor is not calibrated? In that case it is impossible to judge correct colour rendering. It means that you must calibrate you monitor to match your output profile, and not the other way around by changing the profile of your file to match the monitor.

 

The NEC is calibrated, the Macbook too, the Thinkpad is not.

 

Does this mean that almost everybody thinks that SRGB shows exactly what they did in photoshop or similar with no requirements for after processing?

[sandymc]

Does this mean that almost everybody thinks that SRGB shows exactly what they did in photoshop or similar with no requirements for after processing?

 

If everything in your work flow is calibrated, etc, then the colors that can be represented within the gamut of sRGB will show exactly as they did in Photoshop. But any color that can't be represented in sRGB (aka is outside the gamut of sRGB) will be slightly out - typically, a bit desaturated. But there is no standard for how out-of-gamut colors are shown; different workflows may give slightly different results.

 

Sandy

[ChrisC]

... colors that can be represented within the gamut of sRGB will show exactly as they did in Photoshop....

 

Henrik - Forgive me if you already know the following.

 

There is a conceptual component to comprehending Colour Spaces, and wanting to 'get' in a print what you see on screen is not necessarily the best idea.

 

Calibrate your monitor so that it accurately displays colours, and then forget about the monitor calibration Profile until you next calibrate. Your Working Space is the Colour Space you elect to use for converting your files into. If your monitor can show all the colours available from sRGB, and if your image file is written in sRGB the image will be accurately displayed,. If your chosen output can print all sRGB Colour Space colours the often repeated mantra of 'what you see is what you get' should follow. Some people who only ever see images on-screen and have no need for prints elect to use sRGB as their Working Space.

 

The twist to the above is that [with the M8 for example] digital cameras can record subtle colours that fall outside of sRGB and ARGB Colour Spaces; if keeping those colours is desirable, a larger Colour Space [of which there are many to choose from] is needed to store those colours. In which case, the file will have colour information which cannot be portrayed on screen because of the monitor is most likely only capable of displaying the small Colour Space of sRGB and cannot accurately display those colours contained by the image which fall outside of the sRGB Colour Space. [Monitors are improving; some, though expensive, can display ARG which is a bigger Colour Space than sRGB].

 

Colours which fall outside of a Colour Space are deemed out of gamut. Selecting one's Rendering Intent determines the manner of converting out of gamut colours of a larger Colour Space into a smaller Colour Space [as in Rendering ARGB into the smaller sRGB Colour Space].

 

The photographer and Colour Space designer Joseph Holmes argues that Photoshop [for example] does not manage out of gamut colours well and sends images to his printer written in Colour Spaces substantially larger than his monitor can display. Joseph's argument is that Printer Drivers do a far better job of interpreting [rendering] the out of gamut colours into print form than a Colour Space conversion in Photoshop would.

 

ARGB = AdobeRGB = Adobe98

 

Hope I made sense. If I am in error I'm sure Sandy will correct me.

 

............... Chris

[sandymc]

That's right - the main problem with color management is what to do with out of gamut colors. I actually simplified when I said that "colors that can be represented within the gamut of sRGB will show exactly as they did in Photoshop" - that's mostly true, but there are various techniques known as "perceptual mappings"; what they do is to change all colors, even those that are "in gamut" to give an overall image that looks "right". Printer manufacturers are (in)famous for building such mappings into their printers. The problem is that perceptual mapping are very difficult to deal with consistently in color managed environments; you can occasionally get quite unexpected results.

 

Sandy

[jaapv]

Henrik - Forgive me if you already know the following.

 

There is a conceptual component to comprehending Colour Spaces, and wanting to 'get' in a print what you see on screen is not necessarily the best idea.

 

Calibrate your monitor so that it accurately displays colours, and then forget about the monitor calibration Profile until you next calibrate. Your Working Space is the Colour Space you elect to use for converting your files into. If your monitor can show all the colours available from sRGB, and if your image file is written in sRGB the image will be accurately displayed,. If your chosen output can print all sRGB Colour Space colours the often repeated mantra of 'what you see is what you get' should follow. Some people who only ever see images on-screen and have no need for prints elect to use sRGB as their Working Space.

 

The twist to the above is that [with the M8 for example] digital cameras can record subtle colours that fall outside of sRGB and ARGB Colour Spaces; if keeping those colours is desirable, a larger Colour Space [of which there are many to choose from] is needed to store those colours. In which case, the file will have colour information which cannot be portrayed on screen because of the monitor is most likely only capable of displaying the small Colour Space of sRGB and cannot accurately display those colours contained by the image which fall outside of the sRGB Colour Space. [Monitors are improving; some, though expensive, can display ARG which is a bigger Colour Space than sRGB].

 

Colours which fall outside of a Colour Space are deemed out of gamut. Selecting one's Rendering Intent determines the manner of converting out of gamut colours of a larger Colour Space into a smaller Colour Space [as in Rendering ARGB into the smaller sRGB Colour Space].

 

The photographer and Colour Space designer Joseph Holmes argues that Photoshop [for example] does not manage out of gamut colours well and sends images to his printer written in Colour Spaces substantially larger than his monitor can display. Joseph's argument is that Printer Drivers do a far better job of interpreting [rendering] the out of gamut colours into print form than a Colour Space conversion in Photoshop would.

 

ARGB = AdobeRGB = Adobe98

 

Hope I made sense. If I am in error I'm sure Sandy will correct me.

 

............... Chris

 

 

Well summarized. it needs one addition, though. When shooting RAW, the colourspace is defined by the RAW converter, not by the camera.

[ammitsboel]

That's right - the main problem with color management is what to do with out of gamut colors. I actually simplified when I said that "colors that can be represented within the gamut of sRGB will show exactly as they did in Photoshop" - that's mostly true, but there are various techniques known as "perceptual mappings"; what they do is to change all colors, even those that are "in gamut" to give an overall image that looks "right". Printer manufacturers are (in)famous for building such mappings into their printers. The problem is that perceptual mapping are very difficult to deal with consistently in color managed environments; you can occasionally get quite unexpected results.

 

Sandy

 

Thanks Sandy & Chris,

 

I would like to do some more testing and maybe find a "standard" low quality LCD ICC profile that I can convert to for web. I don't think that it's a good idea to use SRGB + more saturation and sharpness.

 

Best Regards

Henrik

[ChrisC]

Henrik - Beware of trying to have control over the uncontrollable - it could drive you nuts. Your file contains information with integrity, an on-screen representation is merely a visual approximation of the file [particularly for out of gamut colours]; the image on-screen is not the real thing even if you have a well calibrated screen. Once an image leaves your computer it really is time to let it go as you have no idea how it is going to be represented on other people's screens; be it CRT, flat screen, calibrated, uncalibrated, outdoors reflecting the sky, or whatever.

 

At best, other people will be viewing a small crappy Web Jpeg in a who-knows-what viewing environment and issues such as sharpening are barely worth worrying about; just as a postcard of Yosemite will not have the presence of an Adams master-print.

 

I don't post images regularly on forums, but I regularly send e-mail pictures to friends. I switch between a number of large Colour Spaces when playing an image, but to make an e-mail friendly image I have no problems with making a small version converted into sRGB. That is the profile we know as a comfortable compromise for everyone's computer. If you use an uncommon Colour Space; how do you think a computer that does not have that Colour Space loaded on it's hard-drive will represent the colours you fussed over on your own monitor?

 

Like others, I'm suspicious that something is incorrect with your picture editing set-up. If you are RAW image processing, what Colour Space are you processing into. In your editing software [e.g. Photoshop] what is selected as your Working Colour Space?

 

............. Chris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ammitsboel]

Like others, I'm suspicious that something is incorrect with your picture editing set-up. If you are RAW image processing, what Colour Space are you processing into. In your editing software [e.g. Photoshop] what is selected as your Working Colour Space?

In LR i process RAW and LR uses my monitor profile for viewing.

In PS the working profile is SRGB.

 

When I convert to SRGB and does not imbed SRGB profile, the images look flat and desaturated when looked at in a browser.

 

If I convert to SRGB and imbed profile, the colors are better but I see a difference in how the apple color engine processes color information than PS does.

 

H

[jaapv]

Henrik, you've lost me completely now - what exactly are you trying to achieve?

Once you have run through RAW conversion and post-processing in the larger colourspace and 16 bits, for web display you need to convert to 8-bits sRGB - for the sole reason that that is the standard most webbrowsers use. The visible difference on your screen should be minimal.

Now if you wish to create a file that will render the same on every monitor in the world -that is an illusion. It will be viewed on colour-calibrated Eizos down to cell-phones. So if your idea is to create some kind of mini-colourspace you will have the minimum quality - on every screen.